Despite its prominence and many internal disputes, luck egalitarianism had, until the late 1990s, failed to attract high-profile external
criticism from an egalitarian perspective. This changed, however,
with the publication of Elizabeth Anderson’s thought-provoking
article ‘What Is the Point of Equality?’.1 A fixed conviction of egalitarian justice is, in Ronald Dworkin’s terms, that a government treats
all its citizens with equal concern and respect.2 Anderson arrestingly
claims that luck egalitarianism fails to express equal concern and
respect for individuals. Contemporary egalitarian philosophy is consequently not only objectionable to conservatives but embarrassing
to egalitarians.

She is not alone in making these claims. Several writers have argued
that the roles of equality and responsibility in luck egalitarianism are
far more problematic than its proponents suppose. According to
some there is nothing particularly egalitarian about rewarding those
who act responsibly and penalizing those who act less responsibly. It
is claimed that luck egalitarianism’s dedication to full responsibility
sensitivity makes a mockery of its supposed commitment to equality.
That same dedication makes it frivolously redistribute in some cases
and turn its back when its assistance is most in need. As we shall see,
some have gone even further than Anderson, and suggested that the
conservative opponents of social equality will welcome luck egalitarianism with open arms.

Two broad categories of reasons for these kinds of conclusions
may be distinguished. In section 3 I will examine the charge that luck
egalitarianism disrespects or insults both those it compensates and
those who pay for the compensation. I will call this the insult argument. In sections 4 and 5 I will consider the injury argument–that
is, the allegation that luck egalitarianism illegitimately abandons or
injures either certain badly off individuals or society as a whole. I
will maintain that the critics’ arguments in some cases fail to apply

Print this page

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary
to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution.
We are sorry for any inconvenience.